365
edits
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 50: | Line 50: | ||
In 1913, Wittgenstein published a very short review of philosopher and mathematician Peter Coffey's ''The science of logic'' in ''The cambridge review'' (vol. 34, no. 853, 6 Mar. 1913, p. 351). In an openly ironic tone, Wittgenstein argues against the antiquated view and inaccuracies of the logical notions expressed by the author, some of which – such as the subject-predicate form of the proposition, the relationship between thought and reality, and the logical-semantic function of the verb to be – will have an important development in Wittgenstein's own later works. | In 1913, Wittgenstein published a very short review of philosopher and mathematician Peter Coffey's ''The science of logic'' in ''The cambridge review'' (vol. 34, no. 853, 6 Mar. 1913, p. 351). In an openly ironic tone, Wittgenstein argues against the antiquated view and inaccuracies of the logical notions expressed by the author, some of which – such as the subject-predicate form of the proposition, the relationship between thought and reality, and the logical-semantic function of the verb to be – will have an important development in Wittgenstein's own later works. | ||
Go to "[[Review of P. Coffey, “The Science of Logic”|Review of P. Coffey, ''The science of logic"'']] | |||
Line 59: | Line 62: | ||
In bringing an explicit content to contemporary anthropology, Wittgensteinian philosophy thus takes on here some epistemological questions, which will be called up on several occasions in the ''Philosophical Investigations'' and in ''On Certainty''. | In bringing an explicit content to contemporary anthropology, Wittgensteinian philosophy thus takes on here some epistemological questions, which will be called up on several occasions in the ''Philosophical Investigations'' and in ''On Certainty''. | ||
Go to "[[Bemerkungen über Frazers “The Golden Bough”|Bemerkungen über Frazers ''The Golden Bough'']]''"'' |